MASSACHUSETTS, March 18, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Even though hospitals in Massachusetts are ordered to cancel any “nonessential, elective invasive procedure” to free up resources for the fight against the spread of the coronavirus epidemic, abortions will continue as before.
“Terminating a pregnancy is not considered a nonessential, elective invasive procedure for the purpose of this guidance. However, the ultimate decision is based on clinical judgment by the caring physician,” a memorandum of the Bureau of Health Care Safety and Quality in Massachusetts stated, according to MassLive.com.
The article also reported on the document recommending that providers “use their discretion on invasive procedures that must move forward to ‘preserve the patient’s life and health,’ though the order states that doesn’t apply to canceling or delaying life-sustaining care.”
Meanwhile, the Huffington Post claimed that abortion might be harder to come by in Texas. Joe Nelson, an abortionist in the Lone Star State, “is now self-quarantining for 14 days.”
Nelson told HuffPost “he was mostly worried about how his unplanned absence might affect women’s ability to get abortions in the state.”
“Potentially, it could have a huge impact. There are not that many doctors who provide abortion care in Texas. A lot of the doctors that do come in from out of state. In a situation where doctors are less likely to want to travel, if there’s no one to cover me, patients will have to wait,” Nelson explained.
“Health care providers are being diverted to help address the epidemic while also being most at risk of acquiring the disease. This may create a shortage of clinicians who can provide sexual and reproductive health services and increase wait times for patients in need,” the Guttmacher Institute stated.
“In places that already have a limited number of providers, this will put an extreme strain on capacity to serve patients, especially for non-emergency care.”
The institute also claimed that government funding is now focused on issues related to the coronavirus, “which would take funding away from reproductive health programs and decrease access for patients who rely on free or subsidized care. Likewise, the need for new precautionary equipment, training and protocols will further draw time and resources away from other work, including projects and programs related to sexual and reproductive health.”
Due to the closure of workplaces in many parts of the country, “people with low incomes may be unable to afford sexual and reproductive health care,” which always includes abortions.
The Guttmacher Institute speculated that “if pregnant women and infants are found to be at heightened risk” from the coronavirus, “that may prompt some people to avoid having children and could lead to increased demand for contraceptive and abortion services.”
Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic speaker of the House of Representatives, attempted last week to weaken restrictions on federal abortion funding within emergency legislation to combat the coronavirus.
Mark Harrington, president of the pro-life organization Created Equal, commented, “Clearly, the abortion industry will not ‘allow this crisis to go to waste.’”
Because of the coronavirus, Created Equal’s outreach efforts are focusing on sidewalk-counseling instead of events on college and high school campuses.
“We will take the necessary precautions to protect our health and the health of others, but we need to be proactive and deploy our assets to combat the hijacking of this emergency to advance abortion,” Harrington said.